Centerfield

The politics and economics of this are very interesting and complex. When you get the conservative/libertarian Cato Institute advocating essentially open borders and several liberal groups advocating for complete amnesty it puts the left/right equation in question. The Economist had a good article on this in the past issue.

In AZ we certainly found with Prop 200 a fairly popular (Tancreado failed to mention that its support was continually eroding and if the election had been held 1-2 months later it probably would have failed) sentiment that "something" must be done.

Personally I think the illegal Mexican immigrants help the country and economy and they will ultimately help Mexico. Rick, many do return (and hopefully influence Mexico to get its economic and political act together). For me the big short-term issue is cost to local and state government for healthcare (you can't turn away anyone in the ER), education and jails. So the country as a whole benefits but the states eat the costs.

Politically, both parties are trying to figure out what the best strategy is to get the most votes. A majority of hispanic voters in AZ voted for Prop 200. I do beleive that many Republicans reflexively oppose a more liberal immigration policy because of long-standing nativist tendencies. Now, I beleive THAT turns off hispanic voters.

But again, I think overall its good for the US; always has, always will be.

We should encourage immigration of certain groups of people:
- students. particularly those seeking degrees in technical areas, science, medicine
- certain occupations (note the shortage of nurses)

We should discourage those people who cannot contribute to the economy. Low wage workers do not contribute to the economy except to allow employers to pay low wages.

EG,

Low wage workers also contribute to the economy by allowing producers to charge less to you and other consumers. How much more are you willing to pay for a head of lettuce to make sure that the lettuce was picked by "good Americans"? Besides, do you really think we can find 10 million American citizens willing to go pick lettuce and work as nannies?

As for only picking certain categories to allow in, government is rarely very good at identifying what skills or products are needed in the economy, and worse at adapting as those needs change. I could easily see a government program set up to promote immigration of nurses which keeps on going long after we have a surplus of them, instead.

Moreover, low wage workers do not stay low wage workers forever in this country. Their children tend to use the education we provide and better their lot in life.

We do need to set limits on immigration. The only problem we are facing right now is that the limits are clearly too low. Among other things, we need to have programs for seasonal migrant workers to come in and leave as needed. In those areas of the economy where we have massive levels of illegal immigrants working, we need to adopt policies which recognize the economics which are causing this.

As Europe is discovering, the line between immigration costs and immigration benefits depends largely on what society offers as benefits. Immigrants bring a lot more to the table than meets the eye.

Wish I knew where that line was.

Currently, there are special immigration programs for certain occupations. The most well known program for technical folks is the H-1B VISA. There is also a special program for nurses. There is another program for celebs (athletes, fashion models, etc.)!

Agriculture has another set of programs. There's a program for chick sexers - determing the sex of chicks after hatching. Korean women have a virtual lock of this job - who knew?

Congress reviews each program yearly and changes the numbers for each program. The free market forces tend to keep the immigration programs fairly current - changing requirements and qualifications.

Chicken sexing can get you jail time in most states.

I think immigration is going to be a major issue in 2006. Newt Gingrich is planning to make immigration the major theme of his presidential campaign. Other candidates are sure to follow.

Actually, this is an issue that the Democrats should be all over. Most of the people who benefit from illegal immigration are wealthy; corporations, factory farms, and people who can afford maids. The losers are native born blue collar workers and legal immigrants. Democrats could use this along with outsourcing to take a major bite out of the GOP.

Tom Tancredo is himself the biggest obstacle to effective immigration reform. His reliance on race-baiting turns off centrists who would respond to a proposal both for immigration caps, and a meaningful guest worker program. Bringing migrant workers into the law, combined with a massive crackdown on employers that continue to use illegals afterward, would finally start to bring the economic and security problems under control. (Plus, guest workers would make a great revenue stream for Social Security, since they would retire under the system.)

"Undocumented guest workers" already make a great revenue stream for SS, and that's part of the reason neither party is too wild about crackdowns. Those illegals working semi-legitimately under false SS#'s and ID still have SS withheld from their wages (and taxed from their employers) and paid into the system, but with about zero chance they'll ever be able to apply for or collect benefits. It's "free" money for the government.

I'm sure we'll not be able to determine the number of illegals with fake SS numbers vs. illegals who are paid under the table without any withholding. But I'm willing to bet the latter category has a larger population.

Right, fake SSNs might lead to withholdings, but I'm talking about drawing more off-the-books work into the system. [Also, my last sentence above should have been 'wouldn't' instead of 'would'.]

What we really need is to aim for a state where we only have immigration that is legal, but the catch -22 is that we can't add additional legal immigration until we control the illegal forms.

Seems to me we should incentivize legal immigration and guest workers by making it an attractive option for both employers and employees, and along with that, by setting substantial punishments for hirers of illegals. I like the idea of substantial enough penalities that no one would want to run the risk of getting caught even if the risk were low.

And I WOULD be willing to pay more for produce to see a guest worker program with a decent minimum wage set, with a small tax taken out to cover immigrant healthcare. Seems to me that if we let honest mexicans come and go as needed, they'd be less likely to come and stay illegally.

And i think that to a lareg extent, there are ways to do this. The problem, really, is that there is no consistent will. There's a lot of support for NOT changing things, from farmers to hispanic advocates to consumers and right on down the line. The fuzzy black market in labor both breeds popular resentment and disincentivizes playing by the rules.

No changes will work unless legal temporary workers can be compensated at a rate equal to or better than that received by illegals.

Yup. Don't get me wrong, I think we have to control illegal immigration, but I also think we have to expand legal immigration. Most importantly I think we need to (legally) beat the hell out of those who employ and exploit illegal immigrants.

I've blogged several time about some of the motivations of both parties (as I see them) for not being tough on illegal Hispanics. IMHO, much of the motivation stems from the sheer demographics involved. MOST of our population growth in the next 30 years will be from Hispanics, illegal and otherwise. And population growth is essential to limiting some of our national cash-flow problems, and in maintaining economic growth.